The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2019

the global
sustainable
competitiveness
index
2019
the REAL competitiveness index
1

About this Report
The Sustainable Competitiveness Report, 8 th edition
December 2019
Methodology, calculation, & report compilation by SolAbility.
© SolAbility. Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 4.0 International License
All artwork by Yake – www.yakepics.com
Reproduction and dissemination is welcome & encouraged with citation of
source.
Acknowledgements
The compilation and calculation of this Index would not have been possible
without the data and time series made available by the World Bank Indicator
database, various UN agencies (UNDP, UNEP, UNICEF, FAO, WHO, WMO,
www.data.un.org), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other nongovernmental
organisations (including Transparency International, Reporters
without Borders, The New Economics Foundation, The Institute for Economics and
Peace, The Fund For Peace, the Joint Global Change Research Institute).
About SolAbility
SolAbility is an independent sustainability think-tank and advisory, with presence
in Korea and Switzerland.
SolAbility is the maker of 3 DJSI Super-Sector Leaders. We have designed and
implemented the sustainable management for GS Engineering & Construction
(DJSI Global Industry leader 2012), Korea Telecom (DJSI Global Industry Leader
2011-2013, 2015), and Lotte Shopping (DJSI Global Industry Leader 2011-2015).
SolAbility Sustainable Intelligence
Zurich, Seoul
www.solability.com
contact@solability.com
2

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. 3
1 SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS ...................................................................... 4
1.1 KEY TAKE-AWAYS: COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2019: ................................................... 5
1.2 SUSTAINABLE VS. CONVENTIONAL COMPETITIVENESS .................................................. 6
1.3 SOVEREIGN BOND RATINGS DO NOT REFLECT RISKS ................................................... 7
1.4 HIGHER SUSTAINABILITY EQUALS HIGHER WEALTH..................................................... 9
1.5 THE 2019 GLOBAL INDEX RANKINGS .................................................................... 10
2 NATURAL CAPITAL .......................................................................................... 12
3 GOVERNANCE EFFICIENCY ............................................................................... 15
4 INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL ................................................................................... 18
5 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 21
6 SOCIAL CAPITAL .............................................................................................. 24
7 FROM EVALUATING TO DEFINING SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS ................ 26
7.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS ............................................... 28
7.2 SHARED VALUES .............................................................................................. 29
7.3 OUTLINING SUSTAINABLE GOVERNANCE ................................................................ 30
8 SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS MODEL & INDEX METHODOLOGY ................. 33
8.1 THE SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS MODEL ......................................................... 33
8.2 COMPETITIVENESS INDICATORS ........................................................................... 36
8.3 INDEX CALCULATION ......................................................................................... 40
9 DATA TABLES .................................................................................................. 42
3

Executive Summary
Table of
Contents
1 Sustainable Competitiveness
What?
The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index (GSCI) measures the total
competitiveness – now, and the potential into the future – of nation-economies.
It is based on 116 quantitative – not qualitative! - indicators to exclude any
subjectivity.
Sustainable competitiveness is the ability to generate and sustain inclusive
wealth without diminishing the future capability of sustaining or increasing
current wealth levels.
The GSCI is the most comprehensive measurement of the competitiveness of
nation-states - both as-is, and with respective to future potential.
Why?
GDP and other measurements based on economic indicators do not measure
real competitiveness. To counter the lack of integral competitiveness
measurement of nations, the GSCI integrates all three dimensions of sustainable
development: the environment, the society, the economy. Because
development that is not sustainable is not development. It is called regression.
How?
The GSCI is based on 116 measurable and comparable quantitative indicators.
Quantitative indicators can be measured and exclude subjectivity associated
with qualitative indicators. The methodology was originally developed based on
ESG frameworks to evaluate corporate sustainability.
The sustainable competitiveness model is based on 5 pillars of equal
importance:
Natural Capital: the given natural environment,
including the availability of resources, and the level of
the depletion of those resources.
Social Capital: health, security, freedom, equality and
life satisfaction within a country.
Governance
Resource Management: the efficiency of using
available resources as a measurement of operational
competitiveness in a resource-constraint World.
Intellectual Capital: the capability to generate wealth
and jobs through innovation and value-added
industries in the globalised markets
Resource
efficiency
Sustainable
Competitive
Intellectual
Capital
Governance Efficiency: Results of core state areas and
investments – infrastructure, market and employment
structure, the provision of a framework for sustained
and sustainable wealth generation
Social
Capital
Natural
Capital
4

Executive Summary
Table of
Contents
1.1 Key Take-aways: Competitiveness Index 2019:
Scandinavia, Northern Europe on Top – Least developed Africa behind:
• The top 5 spots are occupied by Scandinavia: Sweden is leading the
Sustainable Competitiveness Index – followed by the other 4 the
Scandinavian nations.
• The top 20 are dominated by Northern European countries, including the
Baltic states
• Of the top twenty nations only two are not European – New Zealand on 12,
and Canada on 19.
• Germany ranks 15, the UK 17, and the World’s largest economy, the US, is
ranked 34. The US ranks particularly low in resource efficiency, but also social
capital – potentially undermining the global status of the US in the future
• Of the large emerging economies (BRICs), China is ranked 37, Brazil 49,
Russia 51, and India 130.
• Some of the least developed nations have a considerable higher GSCI
ranking than their GDP would suggest (e.g. Laos, Timor, Burma, Bhutan,
Suriname…)
• Asian nations (South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and China) lead the
Intellectual Capital ranking. However, achieving sustained prosperity in
these countries might be compromised by Natural Capital constraints and
current high resource intensity/low resource efficiency
• The Social Cohesion ranking is headed by Northern European
(Scandinavian) countries, indicating that Social Cohesion is the result of
economic growth combined with a country-wide social consensus
The Sustainable Competitiveness World Map 2019
The Sustainable Competitiveness World Map. Dark areas indicate high competitiveness, light areas low
competitiveness
5

Executive Summary
Table of
Contents
1.2 Sustainable vs. Conventional Competitiveness
Conventional Competitiveness: GDP measurements, the WEF
Index
The success of nations currently is mostly expressed in their economic output –
GDP, and GDP per capita, GDP growth. The GDP or GNI, however, are limited to
the current economic output, and do not evaluate underlying structures.
The best-know competitiveness ranking is the WEF’s Competitiveness Index.
However, the WEF index is flawed, both methodically and in terms of indicators
considered. It is therefore not really surprising that the Index results rise eyebrows.
We are all aware that the US is a big economy – but the 2 nd most competitive
economy? Please. Yes, the US has MS, Google and precision military hardware,
people don’t buy American cars because they are not competitive – and that’s
all. Here are some of the most striking differences between the WEF-Index and
the Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index:
Rank
Country GSCI WEF +/-
Sweden 1 8 +7
Finland 2 11 +9
Iceland 3 26 +23
Denmark 4 10 +6
Norway 6 17 +11
Switzerland 5 5 -
Estonia 7 31 +24
New Zealand 12 19 +7
Germany 15 7 -8
United Kingdom 17 9 -8
France 20 15 -5
Japan 25 6 -19
Rank
Country GSCI WEF +/-
South Korea 27 13 -14
Netherlands 29 4 -25
USA 34 2 -32
Spain 38 23 -15
China 37 28 -9
Singapore 41 1 -40
Australia 42 16 -26
Bolivia 48 107 +59
Brazil 49 71 +22
Argentina 69 83 +14
United Arab Emirates 80 25 -55
India 130 68 -62
We consider the GSCI to be a more balanced index and measurement of
competitiveness that delivers a deeper and more accurate picture of the true
competitiveness of a nation-economy. (For a detailed analysis of the similarities
and differences between the GSCI and the WEF index, please refer to the
research paper “Sustainable Vs WEF Competitiveness”).
6

Executive Summary
Table of
Contents
1.3 Sovereign Bond Ratings Do Not Reflect Risks
The sovereign bond rating of a country – commonly referred to as credit rating -
determines the level of interest a country has to pay for loans and credits on the
financial markets. It is therefore a very important parameter for every economy
– it defines the level of capital cost for new investments, and the cost of debt.
Credit ratings also affect the risks investors are willing to take in overseas
investments.
Sovereign risk ratings market is dominated by the “three sisters”: Moody’s, S&P,
and Fitch. Sovereign risks are calculated based on a mix of economic, political
and financial risks. All of these criteria represent current risks that, like GDP
calculations, do not take into account the framework that defines the current
situation. They do not consider the wider environment – the education
availability, the ability and motivation of the workforce, the health, well-being
and the social fabric of a society, the physical environment (natural and manmade)
that are the fundament of the current situation. Credit ratings describe
symptoms, they do not look at the root causes. It is therefore questionable
whether credit ratings truly reflect investor risks of investing in a specific country,
in particular for long-term bonds and investments.
Sustainable vs. conventional country credit rating
Comparison of evaluation models:
The Global Competitiveness Model is based on 5 pillars, aiming to cover &
evaluate performance of all elements that make economic development (the
root). Conventional ratings are based on 4 areas of results. Conventional credit
ratings rate the outcome (the end-result); the GSCI the root cause of the
outcome.
7

Executive Summary
Table of
Contents
Rating comparisons and implications
In order to test the implications of the conventional applied sovereign bond
ratings, a virtual sustainability-adjusted credit rating was calculated. The
sustainability-adjusted rating is equally based on GSCI ratings and conventional
ratings (average of Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch).
Country
Credit rating
(average of M oody's,
S&P; Fitch)
Sustainabilityadjusted
rating
Level
difference
Morocco BBB− BB -2
Paraguay BB+ BBB+ 3
Portugal BBB A 3
Qatar AA− BBB+ -4
Romania BBB− A 4
Saudi Arabia A+ BBB -4
Singapore AAA AA -2
Slovenia A− AA− 3
South Africa BB+ BB -1
Spain A− A 1
United Arab Emirates AA A -3
United Kingdom AA AA+ 1
USA AAA AA -2
Vietnam BB BB+ 1
Based on sustainable competitiveness, countries dependent on exploitation of
natural resources would receive a significant lower credit rating. On the other
hand, some developing nations would receive higher ratings (and therefor lower
interest rates) based on their development potential.
In the asset management world, it is now standard procedure to integrate “E, S
and G” into financial investment risk/opportunity evaluation, while credit ratings
do exclude ESG risks - and therefore do not cover all investor risks. Key
observations:
• Sovereign bond ratings show a high correlation to GDP/capita levels:
Poor countries have to pay higher interest rates than rich countries.
• Sovereign bond ratings do not reflect the non-tangible risks and
opportunities associated with nation economies
• Sustainable adjusted ratings and conventional ratings show significant
differences. Under a sustainability-adjusted credit rating, countries with
high reliance on exploitation of natural resources would be rated lower,
while poor country with a healthy fundament (biodiversity, education,
governance) would receive higher ratings.
It is high time that credit ratings include sustainability in their risk calculations.
8

Executive Summary
Table of
Contents
1.4 Higher Sustainability Equals Higher Wealth
The chicken or the egg?
Sustainable competitiveness means that current wealth levels are not in danger
of being reduced or diminished through over-exploitation of resources (i.e.
natural and human resources), the lack of innovation investments required to
compete in the globalised markets (i.e. education), or the discrimination,
marginalisation or exploitation of segments of a society.
The leading nations on the GSCI ranking are mostly highincome
countries, suggesting a certain correlation
between Sustainable Competitiveness score and GDP
per capita, or income levels (high income = high
sustainability). The same is true when visualizing average
deviations of GDP per capita and the sustainable
competitiveness score.
However, the correlation is superficial and refuted by too
many exceptions to the rule. Resource economies (e.g.
Sadia Arabia, Kuwait) are ranked significantly below
their GDP ranks. This indicates that the correlation is not
from GDP to sustainable competitiveness, but rather
from sustainable competitiveness to income levels. In
other words: higher sustainable competitiveness can be
associated with higher income levels.
The presence of large natural resources allows for
exploitation of the natural capital (e.g. the oil-rich countries of the Middle East).
However, such wealth is highly unsustainable and the wealth generated will
diminish with depletion of the resources in the absence of an adequate
alternative development and fostering of all 5 pillars. The influence of sustainable
competitiveness on GDP is not immediate; it is time-deferred. Policy decisions
therefore have to be made in light of sustainable competitiveness to achieve
desired results at a later stage.
GDP/capita and sustainable
competitiveness
In other words: sustainability is the chicken AND the egg.
9

Executive Summary
Table of
Contents
1.5 The 2019 Global Index Rankings
Previous indexes can be downloaded on the SolAbility website.
Ra nk Country S c ore Ra nk Country S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore
1 Sweden 60.6 46 Macedonia 47.2 Gabon 91 43.2 Swaziland 136 38.9
2 Finland 59.5 48 Boliv ia 47.1 Cuba 92 43.0 Gambia 137 38.9
3 Iceland 57.3 47 Uruguay 47.2 Ghana 93 42.9 South Africa 138 38.8
4 Denmark 57.0 49 Brazil 46.8 Suriname 94 42.9 Egypt 141 38.6
6 Norway 56.9 50 Ethiopia 46.7 Tanzania 96 42.7 Lesotho 139 38.6
5 Switzerland 56.9 51 Russia 46.7 Cote d'Iv oire 95 42.8 Turkmenistan 140 38.6
7 Estonia 54.9 53 Malta 46.6 Iran 97 42.6 Solomon Islands 143 38.4
8 Luxembourg 54.5 52 Colombia 46.7 Tunisia 98 42.5 Botswana 144 38.4
9 Latv ia 54.4 54 Moldov a 46.5 Togo 100 42.3 Sudan 142 38.5
10 Croatia 54.2 55 Malaysia 46.4 Maldiv es 101 42.3 Pakistan 145 38.3
11 Austria 54.2 56 Montenegro 46.4 Venezuela 99 42.3 St. Kitts and Nev is 146 38.2
12 New Zealand 53.9 57 Guyana 46.2 Republic of Congo 102 41.9 Liberia 147 38.1
13 Slov enia 53.8 58 Chile 45.9 Philippines 103 41.7 Djibouti 148 38.0
14 Ireland 53.6 59 Mauritius 45.9 Democratic Republic of Congo 104 41.7 Zambia 149 37.9
15 Germany 53.5 60 Serbia 45.8 Nicaragua 105 41.5 Jordan 150 37.7
16 Czech Republic 53.1 62 Burma 45.8 Azerbaijan 106 41.5 Bahrain 151 37.7
17 United Kingdom 52.8 64 Nepal 45.6 West Bank and Gaza 107 41.1 Rwanda 152 37.6
18 Liechtenstein 52.6 61 Cyprus 45.8 Dominica 108 41.1 Comoros 153 37.5
19 Canada 52.2 63 Kyrgistan 45.7 Mozambique 109 41.0 Madagascar 154 37.4
20 France 52.0 65 Brunei 45.5 Saudi Arabia 110 41.0 Malawi 155 37.3
21 Poland 51.9 66 Indonesia 45.4 Sri Lanka 111 41.0 Lebanon 156 37.3
22 Slov akia 51.6 70 Laos 45.0 Qatar 112 40.8 Mali 157 37.2
23 Belgium 51.3 68 Uzbekistan 45.0 Dominican Republic 113 40.8 Niger 158 36.9
24 Portugal 51.1 71 Albania 45.0 Equatorial Guinea 114 40.8 Guinea-Bissau 159 36.9
25 Japan 51.1 72 Kazakhstan 44.9 Angola 115 40.7 Afghanistan 160 36.7
27 South Korea 50.8 69 Argentina 45.0 Senegal 116 40.6 Libya 161 36.6
26 Romania 50.8 67 Panama 45.1 Burkina Faso 117 40.6 Kuwait 162 36.4
28 Lithuania 50.6 77 Turkey 44.4 Mongolia 118 40.5 Honduras 163 36.2
29 Netherlands 50.5 73 Oman 44.7 Morocco 119 40.4 Samoa 164 36.2
30 Italy 49.9 74 Ukraine 44.7 Fiji 120 40.3 Kiribati 165 35.5
31 Hungary 49.2 75 Mexico 44.4 Zimbabwe 121 40.2 Syria 166 35.3
32 Bulgaria 49.2 76 Bhutan 44.4 El Salv ador 122 40.2 Central African Republic 167 35.3
33 Bosnia and Herzegov ina 49.2 78 Vietnam 44.4 Papua New Guinea 123 40.2 Iraq 168 34.6
34 USA 49.1 79 Ecuador 44.4 Nigeria 124 39.9 Burundi 169 34.5
35 Georgia 48.8 80 United Arab Emirates 44.3 Guinea 125 39.7 Uganda 170 34.4
36 Costa Rica 48.8 81 Cameroon 44.0 Tonga 126 39.7 Vanuatu 171 34.4
38 Spain 48.5 83 Belize 43.8 India 130 39.5 Chad 172 34.4
37 China 48.5 84 Timor-Leste 43.7 Trinidad and Tobago 127 39.6 Eritrea 173 34.2
39 Paraguay 48.3 82 Thailand 43.8 Benin 128 39.5 Mauritania 174 33.8
40 Belarus 47.8 85 Algeria 43.6 Guatemala 129 39.5 Grenada 175 33.2
41 Singapore 47.8 86 Cambodia 43.5 Sao Tome and Principe 131 39.4 Seychelles 176 32.8
42 Australia 47.6 87 Kenya 43.4 Bangladesh 132 39.1 South Sudan 177 31.8
43 Israel 47.5 88 Armenia 43.3 Namibia 133 39.1 Yemen 178 31.3
44 Greece 47.4 89 Sierra Leone 43.3 Cape Verde 134 39.0 Haiti 179 31.3
45 Peru 47.3 90 Tajikistan 43.3 Jamaica 135 39.0 Bahamas 180 30.5
10

Executive Summary
Table of
Contents
natural
capital
11

Natural Capital
Table of
Contents
2 Natural Capital
Natural capital is the basis on which a country is built: the physical environment
and climatic conditions, combined with the extent of human activities that have
or will affect the natural environment. The Natural Capital of a country reflects its
ability to sustain the population and the economy, now and into the future.
A nation’s natural capital is a given value – it is as it is – i.e. there are limitations
to human ability to improve or change the availability of natural capital. While it
takes little exploit natural capital, rebuilding or improving natural capital factors
is difficult, and requires significant time and resources.
Natural Capital Ratings 2019 – Key Take-aways
High-ranking countries are characterised by abundant water availability, the
source of a rich biodiversity. Many of the highest scoring countries are located in
tropical areas. While some of these countries currently may lack social,
intellectual and governance capital, their Natural Capital would allow them to
develop sustainable competitiveness over time. A certain correlation with the
level of human activities and population density can also be observed: large
countries with a comparably small population density and rich biodiversity tend
to score higher.
The Natural Capital Index is topped by Guyana, followed by Laos, Congo,
Cameron and Sweden. OECD representation in the top 20 is limited to Sweden,
Canada, New Zealand and Finland. The two most populated countries, China
(153) and India (163) are both affected by a combination of arid climate, high
population density and depletion levels, raising concerns over those countries’
ability to self-sustain their large populations in the long term.
The Natural Capital World Map. Dark areas indicate high, light areas low levels of natural capital
12

Natural Capital
Table of
Contents
Natural Capital Components
The Natural Capital of a country is defined by the natural physical environment.
The Natural Capital model incorporates the essence of resources available that
allow a country to be completely self-sustaining: land, water, climate,
biodiversity, food production and capacity, as well as renewable and nonrenewable
energy and mineral resources. In addition, the level of depletion or
degradation of those resources that could endanger future self-sufficiency are
taken into account to reflect the full picture of the available natural capital.
The number of data points related to natural capital available from a variety of
sources is nearly endless. The main challenge is to select the most relevant and
meaningful indicators amongst the wealth of available data. In order to define
meaningful and relevant, the core issues affecting the sustainable use of natural
capital have been defined in the natural capital model below:
Key elements of
competitiveness drivers in the
Natural Capital Sub-Index
Natural capital indicators
Based on the definition of the key natural capital areas, data series are chosen
as indicators that reflect the sustainable competitiveness of a country based on
its natural resources (natural capital).
The indicators have been analysed for the latest data point available as well as
their development over time, reflecting the current status and the future outlook
in relation to the size and population of a country. In addition, indictors that
measure the depletion or degradation of the natural resources have been taken
into account. The combination of these indicators reflect the current status as
well as the ability to sustain the population and the national economy.
As some of the above key areas are difficult to express in numerical values, some
quantitative scores compiled by UN agencies have been used for certain
indicators, such as biodiversity potential, resource depletion, and the ecological
footprint.
For the full list of indicators used, please refer to the methodology section.
13

governance
Table of
Contents
14

Governance
Table of
Contents
3 Governance Efficiency
The Governance Sub-Index of the Sustainable Competitiveness Index is based
on quantitative data series – i.e. not based on qualitative evaluation of
government systems. In addition, some aspects of government direction
implications (such as human rights, freedom of press, etc.) are assigned to the
Social Capital Index. The Governance Sub-Index aims at evaluating the
performance of a country’s regulatory framework and infrastructure
environment to facilitate sustainable competitiveness. The regulatory and
infrastructure framework should enable an environment in which the country’s
natural, social and intellectual capital can flourish to generate new and sustain
existing wealth.
The Governance Efficiency rankings 2018:
• The Governance Ranking is topped by Ireland, followed by the Czech
Republic, Slovenia, Poland, and Germany.
• The ranking is dominated by Central and Eastern European nations
• The UK is ranked 32. Japan 64 and the US at 71.
• Of the BRICs, China is ranked 24, Russia 56, India 75, and Brazil 121
• The map shows a clear north-South gap: all African countries score
comparable low
The Governance World Map
The Governance World Map. Dark areas indicate high, light areas low levels of Governance quality
15

Governance
Table of
Contents
Governing National Development: Shaping Social and Economic
Capital
The base of the Sustainable Competitiveness Pyramid – the Natural Capital of a
country, is given. Everything else – the society, the economy - is shaped by the
legal, regulatory and physical (human built) framework. This framework – the
environment in which society exists and businesses operate - is developed,
maintained and updated by authorities and institutions, most often government
bodies. The Governance Sub-Index therefor encompasses all aspects that shape
the framework of society (the Social Capital), and in which the economy
(Intellectual Capital, Resource Management) operates. Key aspects of the
Governance aspects include:
• Strategic direction of government-led development (the balance
between the key elements of government spending: health, education,
infrastructure, security).
• The built physical environment (infrastructure) required for smooth
operation of the society and businesses, the availability and quality of
public services,
• The framework provided to businesses (formal in terms of business
regulations, and informal in terms of red tape and corruption negatively
affecting businesses),
• Exposure to volatility in terms of government balance sheets, and
exposure to volatility shocks as posed by financial market fluctuations.
Measuring Governance
Key elements of
competitiveness drivers in
the Governance Sub-Index
The result of qualitative governance quality & strategy evaluation depends very
much on the evaluator. The Sustainable Competitiveness Index therefore relies
on purely quantitative data series to exclude all subjectivity in evaluating and
calculating the Governance Sub-Index. In addition, some qualitative indicators
(perceived quality of public services and perceived levels of corruption
determined through reliable and international surveys) have been incorporated.
For the full list of indicators used, please refer to the methodology section.
16

Governance
Table of
intellectual
Contents
capital
17

Intellectual Capital
Intelectual Capital
Table of
Contents
4 Intellectual capital
Intellectual Capital is the fourth level of the Sustainable Competitiveness
Pyramid. In order to create and sustain wealth, jobs and income for the
population are required. Providing jobs requires producing goods and providing
services that people or businesses, domestically or abroad, are willing to buy. This
in turn requires products and services to be competitive in the global market in
terms of quality and price. To maximise the domestic benefits, the value chain is
ideally covered within the boundaries of a national economy - the largest share
of adding value is contained in processing raw materials and/or parts to finished
products.
Sustainable competitiveness therefore requires high R&D capabilities (based on
solid education), and business entrepreneurship. In addition, sustained
economic success requires a healthy balance between service and
manufacturing sectors. Over-reliance on the service sector sooner or later leads
to diminishing growth potential and loss of knowledge.
Measuring innovation
Key elements of competitiveness
drivers in the Intellectual Capital
(innovation capabilities) Sub-
Index
Quality and availability of education in the past are an indication for today’s
R&D and innovation capabilities, and today’s education performance reflect
future innovation capabilities. Strength and depth of R&D activities is the basis
for the development of value-added technologies and services. Educational
performance indicators are therefore highly important to estimate the ability for
sustained innovation and competitiveness.
Additional indicators include performance data on R&D activities and new
business development indicators.
Further indicators relate to the actual business entrepreneurship – new business
registration, trademark applications, and the health of the balance between
agricultural, industrial and service sectors of an economy.
For the full list of indicators used, please refer to the methodology section.
18

Intellectual Capital
Intelectual Capital
Table of
Contents
The Intellectual Capital World Map
Intellectual Capital is the basis for innovation capability and sustainable
economic competitiveness. The indicators used for assessing these criteria are
composed of data points relating to education, innovation capabilities, and
entrepreneurship. Countries with a high score in this ranking are more likely than
others to develop (or sustain) successful economies through research and knowledge
driven industries, i.e. high-value added industries, and therefore achieve
higher growth rates. All indicators used to assess the innovation capability and
sustainable competitiveness have been scored against size of the population or
against GDP in order to gain a full picture of the competitiveness, independent
of the size of a country. In addition, developments (trends) of performance
indicators have also been taken into account. Key observations of the
Intellectual Capital ranking include:
• The innovation and competitiveness ranking is topped by South Korea –
by a considerable margin.
• North-Eastern Asian nations (S. Korea, China, Japan, Singapore) and the
Scandinavian Nations (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) dominate the
intellectual capital sub-index of the GSCI.
• Eastern European countries and the Baltic States also rank high.
• The UK is ranked 7, Germany 11, the US 15.
• Vietnam (42), Tunisia (43), Bolivia (46) and Cuba (49) are the highest
ranked countries of the Southern hemisphere.
• China is ranked 9, Russia 32, Brazil 56, and India 105.
The Intellectual Capital World Map. Dark areas indicate high, light areas low availability of Intellectual Capital
19

Intellectual Capital
Intelectual Capital
resource
Table of
Contents
intensity
20

Resource Intensity
Table of
Contents
5 Resource Management
The second level of the sustainable competitiveness pyramid is the ability to
manage available resource (natural capital, human capital, financial capital)
efficiently – regardless of whether the capital is scarce or abundant. Whether a
country does or does not possess resources within its boundaries (natural and
other resources), efficiency in using resources – whether domestic or imported -
is a cost factor, affecting the competitiveness and thus wealth of nations. Overexploitation
of existing natural resources also affects the natural capital of the
country, i.e. the ability of a country to support its population and economy with
the required resources into the future.
In addition, non-renewable resources that are used today might be scarce and
expensive tomorrow, affecting competitiveness, wealth and the quality of life in
the future. A number of factors are pointing to rising cost for resources in the
future, in particular natural resources: scarcity and depletion of energy, water,
and mineral resources, increasing consumption (particular in non-OECD
countries), financial speculation on raw materials, and possibly geo-political
influences. The key objective of the resource management category is therefore
to evaluate a country’s ability to deal with rising cost and sustain economic
growth in the face of rising prices in the global commodity markets.
Vital natural resources include water, energy, and raw materials. Most of the
resources used today are non-renewable, or only partly renewable: fossil-based
energy, and minerals. Water aquifers and other natural products (e.g. wood) are
renewable, as long as their capacity is not overused and the replacement
patterns are not drastically altered, e.g. trough depletion, biodiversity loss,
pollution, or climate change.
Key elements of competitiveness
drivers in the Resource
Management Sub-Index
Resource efficiency indicators are evaluated both in terms of intensity (per
capita) and efficiency (relative GDP). The availability of accurate global data is
not as wide as in other criteria, particularly in terms of usage of raw materials.
Other than steel & minerals usage, reliable raw material usage statistics are not
available on a global level. The focus is therefore on energy, energy sources,
water, steel usage, as well as GHG emission intensity and productivity. For the full
list of indicators, refer to the methodology section.
21

Resource Intensity
Table of
Contents
Resource Management World Map
The Resource Management Sub-Index is composed of indicators scored relative
to population (e.g. GHG per capita) as well as relative to economic output (e.g.
energy consumption per GDP). Indicators measured against population (per
capita) clearly favour countries with low resource and raw material consumption
(i.e. less developed countries), while indicators scored relative to GDP measure
economic efficiency.
The resource intensity map shows that the resource intensity of less developed
countries seems to be – generally speaking - lower than that of higher developed
economies. However, indicators are measured both against economic output
(GNI/GDP) and against per-capita performance. While the per-capita intensity
is naturally lower in less developed economies, the per-output performance in
efficient developed countries is lower than in the developing countries.
The resource intensity ranking is topped by Kenya, followed by Togo and Ethiopia
– mainly due to low resource consumption. However, also highly developed
economies achieve high rankings – Sweden (5), Luxembourg (6) and the UK (8)
are all ranked within the top ten. However, the World’s economic powerhouses
are ranked significantly lower – Germany on 77, Japan on 96, the US on 102, and
China on 160. The low rankings indicate a distinctive potential for improving
sustainable competitiveness through reducing resource intensity and resource
management – i.e. reducing costs, at the end of the day.
The main implications of higher or lower resource management capabilities are
related to stability and sustained economic growth: should global prices for raw
materials and energy rise significantly in the future (as trends and the majority of
available research suggests), the countries in the lower ranks will face substantial
higher costs and challenges to maintain their growth compared to countries with
higher efficiency and intensity scores.
The Resource Intensity World Map. Dark areas indicate low, light areas indicate high resource Intensity.
22

Resource Intensity
Table of
social
Contents
cohesion
23

Social Cohesion
Table of
Contents
6 Social Capital
The Social Capital of a nation is the sum of social stability and the well-being
(perceived or real) of the entire population. Social Capital generates social
cohesion and a certain level of consensus, which in turn delivers a stable
environment for the economy, and prevents natural resources from being overexploited.
Social Capital is not a tangible value and therefore hard to measure
and evaluate in numeric values. In addition to local historical and cultural
influences, the social consensus in a society is affected by several factors: health
care systems and their universal availability/affordability (measuring physical
health); income and asset equality, which are correlated to crime levels;
demographic structure (to assess the future generational balance within a
society); and freedom of expression, freedom from fear and the absence of
violent conflicts that are required for businesses to be able to generate value.
While a direct connection of social cohesion to creating wealth and sustain
economic development might be difficult to establish scientifically, a certain
degree of equality, adequate health systems, freedom from fear and equal
opportunities (without which no American Dream ever would have been
possible) are pre-requisites to achieve the same. The absence or deterioration of
social cohesion in turn leads to lower productivity (health), rising crime rates, and
potentially social unrest, paralysing economic development and growth.
Social Capital Indicators
Key elements of competitiveness
drivers in the Social Capital Sub-
Index
The indicators selected to measure social cohesion have been selected from the
5 themes above (health, equality, crime, freedom and age structure). Some of
these indicators (e.g. “happiness”) are qualitative, i.e. not based on
performance data that can be measured. Instead, qualitative indicators from
surveys and other sources compiled by recognised organisations were used to
measure the qualitative aspects of social cohesion, including single indicators
from the Happy Planet Index (New Economics Foundation), the Press Freedom
Index (Reporters Without Borders), and the Global Peace Index (Institute for
Economics and Peace). For the full list of used indicators, please refer to the
methodology section.
24

Social Cohesion
Table of
Contents
Social Capital World Map
A certain level of social balance or social consensus is required to maintain a
stable environment in which economic activities can take place. The higher the
social capital of a country, the better the economy can flourish. The higher the
social consensus, the higher the motivation of individuals to contribute to the
wider good, i.e. the sustainable development of the nation – and the less likely
they are to fall off the track into illegal paths of wealth generation that eventually
hurt the legal economy. The indicators used to calculate the Social Capital score
of countries is composed of health and health care factors (availability and
affordability), the quantitative equality within societies (income, assets, and
gender equality), freedom indicators (political freedom, freedom from fear,
individual happiness), crime levels, and demographic indicators.
• The top 20 in the Social Capital sub-index is dominated by European
countries from the North (particularly Scandinavia) – only Japan (12),
Singapore (13) and Kyrgyzstan (19) break into the ranks
• The USA, due to comparable high crime rates, low availability of health
services, and rising inequality, is ranked 142, just below Guinea-Bissau and
above South Sudan.
• The UK is ranked 40, reflecting the deteriorating social fabric.
• China is ranked 34, India 90, Russia 127, and Brazil 148
• The highest ranked South American country are Argentina (55) and
Ecuador (69); the highest-ranking African country Burkina Faso (73).
Most African nations, particular within and south of the Sahel zone, are at the
bottom of this list, due to a combination of low availability of health care services
and child mortality, limited freedom of expression, and unstable human rights
situation
The Social Capital World Map. Dark areas indicate high, light areas low maturity of Social Capital
25

Sustainable Competitive
Table of
Contents
7 From Evaluating to Defining Sustainable
Competitiveness
The GSCI evaluates the competitiveness of nation-economies. But what actually
is competitiveness?
Policy and investment decision in all pillars of competitiveness are inter-acting
and affect the competitiveness of a country:
• The availability and state of natural capital does not affect short-term
economic development or recovery – unless the capital in question is oil
or other commodities in demand on the global market. Exploitation of
natural resources (natural capital) can bring short-term economic
benefits, but is often accompanied by diminishing the basis of future
development (e.g. in the case of forest exploitation)
• Resource intensity is cost. The higher the resource efficiency, the higher
the competitiveness of an economy. However, resource intensity is not
directly linked to short-term economic development. While resource
usage is increasing with initial development, efficiency tends to increase
with higher development and investments. However, economic decline
(as has occurred in Greece since 2010), leads to lower resource
consumption.
• Social capital is negatively affected by economic decline. A declining
economy leads to fewer financial resources available for social capital
aspects (health, community development, integration, …), and leads to
higher criminality as well as individual despair – all of which negatively
affects the competitiveness of a nation-economy on the long term.
• There seems to be a fairly direct connection of Intellectual capital
availability and positive/negative economic development. All countries
that have cut investments (including, but not restricted to, innovation,
R&D and education), have seen a slower recovery or even further
decline since the financial crisis – and vice versa. While it may look
sensible at first glance to cut expenditure to reduce deficits, cuts do not
work because they also cut the required base to kick-start growth.
Cutting investments is unsustainable competitive, i.e. not sustainable
competitive. Sustainable competitiveness means: analysing the likely
outcome of measurements before they are implemented – i.e.
calculating not only the cuts, but also the cost of cuts. A majority of policy
makers these days seem to be blind to the long-term cost of cuts and
benefits of investments. They do not look ahead.
• The analysis of individual indicators suggests a fairly straightforward
connection between the Governance framework provided to the
economy: countries who cut investments (infrastructure, general
investments), countries with a large (uncontrolled) domestic financial
investment markets, and a low industrial base have all declined more
and recovered slower than countries with higher investments, smaller
domestic financial markets and a better industrial base. It also seems
straightforward that a steep increase of financial market size in short term
seems to be the indication of an imminent burst of a bubble.
26

Sustainable Competitive
Table of
Contents
In a sustainable efficient entity, powers are balanced. Imbalance in power
between individuals, groups, and entities always lead to lower efficiency over
time. Low efficiency means higher overall cost, less benefits. What might appear
competitive now (e.g. the exploitation of natural non-renewable resources), but
is not into the future, is not competitive. Competitiveness that is not sustainable is
not competitive.
In a sustainable entity, the economy does not run against nature and/or
communities/society. All dimensions of an entity are all running in parallel in winwin
interactions. The fundamentals hat make an economy, a society, and the
natural environment in which both of the above operate/live in, are balanced
interacting:
The Sustainable Competitiveness Framework:
Sustainable competitiveness only requires two fundamentals as its base:
• Equal opportunities, everywhere
• Decision-making based on science and sustainable cost-benefit analysis
that lead to low-cost, high-benefit solutions (LCHBs)
27

Sustainable Competitive
Table of
Contents
7.1 Requirements for Sustainable Competitiveness
Sustain able competitive economies/nation-states are characterised by high
efficiency – i.e. systems and policies that enable and foster efficiency. We need
efficient systems of governance, free of any religious, political or special interest
views
Sustainable governance
• Efficient governance systems that have built-in guarantees against
authorism with clear assigned and shared responsibilities
• Direct democracy (citizens can not only elect politicians, but also vote
on legislation and policies)
• Efficient legal framework and judicial system that is available and equal
for and to all
• Financial markets that serve the real economy, not vice-versa
• Simple tax regime that taxes all forms of income equally. Public services,
including health, education and infrastructure, are financed through
progressive income taxes
• Harmonised tax rates across regions and countries
• Efficient and well-maintained transport infrastructure, and other public
infrastructure (health, education, recreation)
• Corruption prevention
• Wise allocation of state resources, balancing social, environmental and
economic
interests
Innovation
• Equal quality education for all, constantly adjusted to changing
requirements, including vocational training
• A national/regional economic development strategy/vision supported
by government policies, co-ordination, and incentives
• An environment that supports and rewards investment in R&D
• Curbing the power of monopoly-like entities
Social cohesion
• Universal public health services for all, with additional private health
services beyond the basics
• Respected law enforcement deeply integrated in local communities and
related services to curb crime
• Treatment of diseases as diseases, not as crimes (e.g. drug addiction)
• Equal opportunities for all genders, races and minority groups
• New models of employment and public participation in public services in
light of increasing automatization (robotics and artificial intelligence)
Resource intensity
• Introducing sustainable balance-sheets for all economic activities
(integration of externalities): polluter pays principle for all substances and
activities. Cost to the environment and/or society are factored into the
cost of all products and services
28

Sustainable Competitive
Table of
Contents
• Harmonised global taxing of greenhouse gases, to be reinvested in
renewable energy technologies and climate change impact mitigation
• Resource efficiency – supporting the development of the circular
economy
• Improvement and streamlining of organic food production
Natural capital
• Legal protection of the leftover natural biodiversity
• Restoring biodiversity where possible through sustainable agriculture and
land management
• Reforestation
• Protection of waterways, investment in desalination facilities
7.2 Shared Values
At the base of sustainable economy, we need simple shared values:
• The dignity of the individual is untouchable.
• All individuals are free. The freedom of an individual (or group) ends
where the freedom of others is compromised.
The economics of sustainable competitiveness is equally simple:
• Provision of equal opportunities and equal access for all.
• Internalising all cost, tangible and intangible, in the balance sheets – of
products, services, and in project and policy appraisal.
29

Sustainable Competitive
Table of
Contents
7.3 Outlining Sustainable Governance
The following is a rough outline of issues to be considered when aiming for a real
sustainable & competitive framework:
• Governance update
Our current systems were designed when monarchies were the going
power structures: elected presidents replace the king. It is stupid to
concentrate power in a single pair of hands, be that in a company, an
organisation, local authorities or on the state level. We don’t need kings,
presidents, prime ministers and CEOs. We need teams of decision
makers.
• Democracy upgrade
We currently have systems that allow us to choose between different
versions of jokes every couple of years. That is not democracy. We need
real democracy – we need systems that allow citizens to vote on policy
and regulation changes on a regular basis.
• Legal equality
As is, justice is for the rich and powerful. Suing for your legal rights and
defending yourself in court requires significant financial resources. If you
don’t have financial resources, you are seriously restricted in obtaining
your legal rights, and being sued can ruin you. The justice system has to
be available to all, while there should be barriers for people/entities that
sue for the sake of suing.
• Financial markets reboot
The real economy (the producing economy) currently serves as
collateral for the rent seeking/gambling industry that we call “the
financial markets”. We need financial markets that serve for what they
were initially intended: provide money transfer and provision of capital
for innovation and production.
• Taxing re-start
There will and should always be different levels of wealth. But the
discrepancies have gone completely out of hand, with taxing favouring
those that already have. Being at the right place at the right time or
being a CEO should be neither grounds for amassing millions/billions, nor
for yielding influence and power.
• Integrating the environment in the economy
If pollution dos not have a price, pollution does happen. We need a
system that quantifies pollution, and then can be integrated into the
price of resources and materials. The price has to be paid before the
pollution occurs. For example - we need a global climate tax. Now.
• The role of the state
Privatisation of infrastructure-based public services (railroad services,
water provision, electricity, gas, health care provision) has lead to lower
quality, more frequent disruption, higher prices. The role of the state in
provision of infrastructure-based service provision therefore has to be
discussed, and frameworks to ensure efficient management and
prevention of corruption in public services have to be developed. Or
should the state be a player in the markets itself?
• Economic co-operation
Countries that have a close relationship and co-ordination (e.g. South
Korea, China) have experienced above-average success over the past
decades. While such close relationships are not without their own
inherited complications, a closer alignment of national development
30

Sustainable Competitive
Table of
Contents
priorities and the private sector can be highly beneficial and should be
more closely scrutinised.
• Intelligent investment
Investment decisions need to be based on a broader assessment of
impacts – both negative and positive – and further into the future. In
addition, they should be aligned with a clear development strategy, to
allocate the limited resources at the highest possible return for society,
the economy, the environment and the countries
• Harvesting on technology
New technologies potentially can bring huge benefits to humanity –
clean energy technologies, nano-technologies, artificial intelligence,
robotics, further digitalisation. A clear strategy is required to prioritise
and support beneficial technologies and applications leads to guided
development that is beneficial
• Labour markets and labour security
Digitalisation, robotics and artificial intelligence are expected to
substitute a significant percentage of today’s labour. It is highly likely
that there will not be jobs for everybody into the future. Alternative
models of labour – for example through a base salary tied to work in
organic agriculture, elderly care and other community services, to
name a few – need to be evaluated and discussed timely.
• Public service upgrades
The private sector has completely failed to deliver efficient services in
monopolistic distribution environments (e.g. running water, rail transport,
electricity, …). We need systems that guarantee efficient management
of public infrastructure and services.
• Freeing the press
lies and conspiracy theories is not free speech, it is spreading lies and
conspiracy theories. Pushing the opinions of owners of media
companies is also not free speech. We need a completely independent
fact-based press. Less opinions, more facts. Easy in theory, very complex
in reality.
• Education update
We need better and adequate education for all, including practical
skills. Vocational training needs to be increased and improved, and
curriculums updated regularly based on technology and societal
developments.
• Health re-loaded
Basic health care has to be available to all, paid for by all. That
probably requires state-guided policies, state-managed insurance, and
state-managed health services
• Greening agriculture
Industrial agriculture is based on the use of fertilisers, pesticides, and
managing land in mono-cultures. All three of these have to be replaced
with organic approaches. However, organic agriculture is inevitably
more labour intensive. Solutions to keep the cost of food product within
reasonable scope for the wider public therefore have to be discussed.
• Saving the biosphere
We need more protection for vital eco-systems, such as the Amazon
and other rain-forests. However – it is not only the rainforests. We need
more biodiversity across this World – in all countries, in all regions. More
land needs more land to be protected as parks, and sustainable
management of the resources has to be implemented in line with the
communities living in these areas. Water is vital to the survival of
humanity; waterways ned to be protected better.
31

Methodology
Table of
Contents
32

Methodology
Table of
Contents
8 Sustainable Competitiveness Model & Index
Methodology
8.1 The Sustainable Competitiveness Model
The three-dimensional sustainability model of reconciling the economy, the
environment and the society is often used and applied in the corporate world to
evaluate and manage sustainability issues and performance.
However, corporations are entities that operate in very
different boundaries and with different goals than
states and nation-economies. The elements of the
model therefore have to be adapted to the
characteristics of nations and their fundament of
sustained prosperity.
While corporate or economic entities (depending on
the nature of their business) are working with natural
capital, they do not depend on the location of the
capital (natural, human, financial) they utilize, and
therefore can move their operations to where the
external conditions are most favourable, both in terms
of physical location (offices/factories) and markets, as
well as in terms of business fields. Transport and
international trade have made countries and people
less dependent on their immediate environment
through international trade of resources, including
water. However, countries and population cannot simply move should
fundamental resources (water, agricultural output) become scarce or the
country inhabitable due to climate change. At the end of the day people rely
on, and life off, the natural capital of their environment for better or worse.
Model of sustainable
development often
applied in ESG research
The Sustainable Competitiveness Pyramid
Sustainable competitiveness - they ability to
generate and sustain inclusive wealth and
dignifying standard of life for all citizens in a
globalised world of competing economies,
consists of 5 key elements that interact and
influence each other: natural capital (the
given natural environment and climate, minus
human induced degradation and pollution),
social capital, intellectual capital (the ability
to compete in a globalised market through
sustained innovation), resource management
(the ability to extract the highest possible
value from existing resources (natural, human,
financial), and governance (the framework given, normally by government
policies & investments, in which a national economy operates).
The Sustainable
Competitiveness
Pyramid
33

Methodology
Table of
Contents
It is now widely accepted that economic activities have adverse impacts or sideeffects
on the non-financial assets of a country. The negative impacts of
economic activities - including negative impacts on the social fabric and
cohabitation within a society - can undermine or even reverse future growth and
wealth creation. Due to the omission of key non-financial indicators and
performance that are fundamental to sustain economic activities,
conventionally used measurements to measure wealth of nations such as the
GDP have limited informative value for the future development of a country.
Sustainable competitiveness means the ability of a country to meet the needs
and basic requirements of current generations while sustaining or growing the
national and individual wealth into the future without depleting natural and
social capital.
The Sustainable Competitiveness Index is built and calculated based on the
sustainable competitiveness model that covers 106 data indicators grouped in5
pillars:
Social Cohesion is the fundamental stability required to maintain interruption-free
economic activities: the health of populations, equality, security and freedom
within a country
• Natural Capital is the based to sustain a society and economic activities:
the given natural environment within the frontiers of a country, including
availability of resources, and the level of the depletion of those resources.
• Resource Intensity is a measurement of efficiency, and thus an element
of competitiveness: the efficiency of using available resources (domestic
or imported) as a measurement of operational competitiveness in a
resource-constraint World.
• Social Cohesion is the fundamental stability required to maintain
interruption-free economic activities: the health of populations, equality,
security and freedom within a country
• Sustainable Innovation is key to sustain economic development in the
globalised market: the capability of a country to generate wealth and
jobs through innovation and value-added industries in the globalised
markets
• The Governance framework is the environment businesses and a national
economy are operating in. It is key to future development, not only for
software, but also hardware.
34

Methodology
Table of
Contents
Methodology Development
The competitiveness of a nation is influenced by a wide range of factors, i.e. is a
complex matter. We are striving to develop a model that can reflect all aspects
that define the level of competitiveness. The methodology for the Sustainable
Competitiveness is therefore constantly reviewed and has evolved over time.
The changes to the Sustainable Competitiveness Model and indicators have
been undertaken based on past experiences, new research, data availability,
and back-track analysis.
We prioritise accuracy over consistency. Due to changes in methodology, yearon-year
comparison of rankings have a somewhat limited informative value.
From an index point of view, it might be preferable to base rankings on the same
methodology and data. However, we believe that delivering the most accurate
result possible is more important than direct of year-on-year rankings
comparison. The main changes that have been implemented as a result of the
methodology review include changes to the model of competitiveness on which
the calculation is based, and further adaptation to availability of congruent
data series.
The sustainable competitiveness model has been adapted to better reflect the
elements that characterise and influence sustainable competitiveness of nationeconomy,
and how those elements influence and impact each other. The
model used for the first Index consisted of 4 key elements – Natural Capital,
Resource Intensity, Sustainable Innovation, and Social Cohesion. Since 2014, the
Sustainable Competitiveness model is based on a pyramid with 5 levels. The
basic conditions form the basis of the pyramid, on which the next level is built.
Vice-versa, the higher levels of the pyramid are influencing the performance of
the levels below.
• The base level of the Pyramid is the Natural Capital (the given physical
environment and resources) – the resources that feed the population,
provide energy, and materials
• The second level is Resource Management – the ability to use available
resources at the highest possible efficiency - natural resources, human
resources, intellectual resources, financial resources.
• The third level is the Social Capital of a country, the cohesion between
generations, genders, income groups and other society groups. Social
cohesion is required for the prosperous development of human capital,
i.e. Social Capital is the provision of a framework that facilitates the third
level of the pyramid
• The fourth level is the Intellectual Capital, the fundament for the ability to
compete and generate wealth in a globalised competitive market
through design and manufacturing of value-adding products and
service. It is the basis for management capabilities
• The fifth and highest level is Governance – the direction and framework
provided by government interventions, expenditure, and investments.
Government policies (or the absence of such policies) have strong
influence and or impact on all lower levels of the Sustainable
Competitiveness Pyramid.
35

Methodology
Table of
Contents
8.2 Competitiveness Indicators
The sustainable competitiveness model is based on a pyramid, where each level
is required to support the next higher level. In the top-down direction, the
different levels of the pyramid have influence the state of the lower levels.
Natural Capital
The natural capital is the base of the pyramid, and is defined by the
characteristics of the given physical environment of a country. The natural
capital consists of a mixture of size, population, geography, climate, biodiversity
and availability of natural resources (renewable and non-renewable), as well as
the level of depletion/degradation of the available resources. The combination
of these factors and the level of depletion of the non-renewable resources due
to human activity and climate change represents the potential for sustaining a
prosperous livelihood for the population and the economy of a nation into the
future.
Indicators used encompass water, forest and biodiversity indicators, agricultural
indicators, land degradation and desertification, minerals and energy resources,
pollution indicators and depletion indicators.
Natural Capital Indicators
Fossil energy prevalence (% of total)
Renewable freshwater availability/capita
Electricity from hydropower (% )
Forest area (% of total)
Arable land (ha/capita)
Potential arable land (ha/capita)
Land degradation (% of total)
Land at risk of desertification
Extreme weather incidents
Mineral reserves (per GNI and capita)
Population density
Food Production Index
Endangered species
Energy self-sufficiency
Land area below 5 m (% of total)
Population living below 5m (% of total)
Average rainfall (mm)
Biodiversity Benefit Index (GEF)
Fertilizer consumption/ha
Tourist attractiveness
Ocean Health Index
Natural resource depletion (as percentage of GNI)
Resource Intensity
The more efficient a nation is using resources (natural, human, financial), the
more wealth the country is able to generate. In addition, higher efficiency means
smaller negative impacts of potential supply scarcity of resources (food, energy,
water, minerals). Higher efficiency is also equal to lower cost per production unit
throughout all sectors, private and public. Efficient use of resources and energy
is an indicator for a nation’s ability to maintain or improve living standard levels
both under a future business-as-usual Indicators used cover water usage and
intensity, energy usage, intensity and energy sources, climate change emissions
and intensity as well as certain raw material usage. However, global data
availability for raw materials consumption other than steel is limited and therefore
could not be included.
36

Methodology
Methodology &
Tables Table of
Contents
Indicators used cover water usage and intensity, energy usage, intensity and
energy sources, climate change emissions and intensity as well as certain raw
material usage. However, global data availability for raw materials consumption
other than steel is limited and therefore could not be included.
Resource Intensity Indicators
Transmission losses
Ecological consumption footprint
NOx emissions per GDP
NOx emissions per capita
Energy per GDP
Energy per capita
CO2 emissions / GDP
CO2 emissions /capita
Electricity consumption per capita
Electricity from coal (%)
Electricity from oil (%)
Renewable electricity excluding hydro (%)
Freshwater withdrawal rate
Water productivity
Steel usage efficiency per capita (T/CAPITA)
Air pollution - mean particule concentration
Air pollution exposure - population
Hazardous waste per GDP
Electricity consumption / GDP
Water usage per capita
Waste per capita
Waste per GDP
SO2 emission per GNI
SO2 emissions per capita
Social Capital
The economy requires stability to operate smoothly. Nations and societies
therefore need a minimum level of social cohesion, coherence, and solidarity
between different regions, between authorities and the people, between
different interest groups, between income levels, between generations, and
between individuals. A lack of social cohesion in any of the above aspects results
in social gaps that eventually lead to increased crime, violence and insecurity
that can seriously undermine the stability the economy requires as a basis to
thrive in the long run.
Social Capital Indicators
Doctors per 1000 people
Hospital bed availability
Nurses per 1000 people
Child mortality (below age 5, death per 1000)
Public health spending (% of total health spending)
Suicide rate
Prison population rate (per 100'000 people)
Homicide rate (per 100'000 people)
Peace Index
Press Freedom Index
Public health expenditure of total expenditure
Overweight
Teen moms
Life expectancy
Obesity rate
Income quintile ratio
GINI coefficient (income distribution inequality)
Human rights index
Women in parliament (% of MPs)
Birth per woman
Aging society
37

Methodology
Table of
Contents
Indictors used cover health performance indicators, birth statistics, income
differences, equal opportunities (gender, economic), freedom of press, human
rights considerations, the level of crime against both possession and humans,
and perceived levels of well-being and happiness.
Intellectual Capital
The backbone of sustained economic success is the ability to continuously
improve and innovate on all levels and throughout all institutions (not limited to
the private sector). Sustaining competitiveness also requires a long-term view
beyond momentary political interests or opinions, and long-term investments in
crucial areas (education, infrastructure). Economies that are being deprived
from investments sooner or later face decline, as some nations of the formerly
“leading” West are currently learning the hard way. Indicators used for the
innovation capability sub-index cover education levels, R&D performance
indicators, infrastructure investment levels, employment indexes, and the
balance of the agricultural-industrial-service sectors.
Intellectual Capital Indicators
Primary education completion
Primary student repetitions
Secondary education enrolment
Tertiary education enrolment
Spending on education (% of state expenditure)
Pupil-teacher ratio
Pupil gender ratio
School dropouts secondary
Education spending (% of GDP)
Spending per student (% of per capita GDP)
Patent applications per 1 million people
Patent applications (per GDP)
New business registrations per 1 million people
Trademark applications
R&D FTEs per million people
R&D spending
High tech exports
38

Methodology
Methodology &
Tables Table of
Contents
Governance Efficiency
With the given physical environment and conditions in place, the sustained
competitiveness of a country is determined by what the society and the
economy is able to extract from available resources. This, in turn, is characterized
by the framework provided by authorities. The framework of a country provides
the basis for businesses and the social consensus. Governance indicator consist
of both physical indicators (infrastructure) as well as non-physical attributes
(business legislation, level of corruption, government investments, exposure to
business and volatility risks, exposure to financial risks, etc.)
Governance Efficiency Indicators
Internet availability
TI CPI Index
Bribery payments - % of businesses
Employment in the service sector
Employment in the manufacturing sector
Manufacturing value added
Unemployment
Investments
Austerity Index
Quality of public services
Poverty development
Military spending (% of total government
spending)
Rail network per area & population
Government debt
GNI per capita
Non-renewable resource income dependency
Bank capital-asset ratio
Market fluctuation exposure: stock trading volume
(% of GDP)
Market fluctuation exposure: company value (% of
GDP)
Imports (% of GDP)
Population (total)
Market fluctuation exposure: stock trading volume
(% of GDP)
Market fluctuation exposure: company value (% of
GDP)
Imports (% of GDP)
Population (total)
GNI (total)
Ease of doing business
Access to electricity
39

Methodology
Table of
Contents
8.3 Index calculation
The raw data consist of numerical values. While values can be
ranked against each other, they cannot be compared or
added to other values (two apples plus three oranges are not
equal to five pineapples). It is therefore necessary to extract a
scalable and comparable score from the raw data as a first
step.
When comparing raw data of variables of different countries,
an “absolute best” cannot be defined. Scores therefore
cannot be calculated against a real or calculated best score.
For the purpose of this index, the raw data was analysed and
ranked for each indicator individually. Trough calculation of
the average deviation, the best performing 5% receive the highest score (100),
and the lowest 5% receive the lowest possible score (0). Scores between the
highest and the lowest 5% are linearly assigned relative to the best 5% and the
worst 5%.
Calculating scores from raw
data
In a second step, the relative importance (weight) of the
indicator is assessed against other indicators to calculate
scores for the 5 sub-indexes. The Sustainable Competitiveness
Index is calculated based on the sub-indexes, each weighted
equally.
Data in perspective
Raw data has to be analysed in perspective: 5000 ha of forest
might be a large area for a country like Andorra, but it is a small
area in China. Depending on the indicator, the denominator
might be the land area, the size of the population, or intensity
measurements, e.g. GDP. For certain indicators, (e.g. energy
efficiency, but also innovation indicators), the performance is
evaluated against two denominators (normally population size and GDP) in
order to gain a more altruistic picture of the national sustainability performance
that incorporates economic and human efficiency.
Each level of the Sustainable
Competitiveness Pyramid is
equally important and
therefore equally weighted
Trend analysis: Integrating recent developments
Current data limits the perspective to a momentary picture in
time. However, the momentary status is not sufficient to gain a
true picture of the sustainable competitiveness, which is, by
definition, forward-looking. Of equal importance are therefore
the trend developments. Analysing trends and developments
allows for understanding of where a country is coming from –
and, more importantly - indicates the direction of future
developments. Increasing agricultural efficiency, for example,
indicates a country's capability to feed an increasing
population in the future, or the opposite if the trends are
decreasing. Where sufficient data series are available, the
trend was calculated for the latest 5 years available and scored to evaluate the
current level as well as the future outlook and sustainability potential of a country
based on recent developments.
In order to reflect a dynamic
performance picture,
performance trends are
analysed, scored and
integrated in the Sustainable
Competitiveness Index
40

Methodology
Table of
Contents
Data Sources
Over 90% of the sustainable competitiveness indicators are purely quantitative
performance indicators. Data sources were chosen according to reliability and
availability of global data. The largest percentage of indicators was derived from
the World Bank’s indicator database, followed by data sets and indicators
provided by various UN agencies. Index calculation
Data reliability & accuracy
The accuracy of the index relies on the accuracy of the underlying data. Given
the many individual and agencies involved in data collected around the World,
it cannot be excluded that some of the data is not completely accurate. Data
sources chosen for this Index (World Bank, UN agencies, OECD, IEA) are
considered reasonably reliable. Raw data from the various databases was used
as a basis for calculation as-is, i.e. without verifying the actual data.
Limitations of quantitative analysis
In order to exclude subjectivity, only quantitative data has been taken into
account. However, quantitative indicators sometimes are not able to
differentiate or express real and actual levels of quality. High spending on health
care for example does not necessarily guarantee high quality health care system
available for the average citizen. Equally, the percentage of school enrolment
(on all levels, form primary levels to college and universities) is not necessarily an
expression of the quality of the education. However, for some indicators, quality
is equally important to quantity from a sustainability viewpoint. For such
indicators, quantitative indicators have limited informative value and serve as a
proxy.
While explanatory power of quantitative indicators is limited, conducting a
qualitative evaluation of the indicators used on the global level would go far
beyond the limitations of this index. For indicators with a potentially low
correlation between quantity and quality, the weighting has been adjusted
accordingly. In order to integrate some qualitative aspects, results of global
surveys have been included, e.g. for the quality of public services, or perceived
life satisfaction.
Time frame of data used
The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2019 is based on the latest available
data. For most data series, the latest data available dates 2018. Where 2018 data
was available, 2017 data has been used. Where 2018 or 2017 data was not
available, older data has been used.
Availability of data
For some indicators data is not available for all countries (in particular for the less
or least developed economies). If non-available data points would be
converted to a 0 (zero) score, the rankings would be distorted. In order to present
a balanced overall picture, the missing data points from those countries have
been replaced with calculated values, extrapolated based on regional
averages, income and development levels, as well as geographical features
and climatic averages.
41

Tables
Methodology &
Tables Table of
Contents
9 Data Tables
The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index
Ra nk Country S c ore Ra nk Country S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore
1 Sweden 60.6 46 Macedonia 47.2 Gabon 91 43.2 Swaziland 136 38.9
2 Finland 59.5 47 Uruguay 47.2 Cuba 92 43.0 Gambia 137 38.9
3 Iceland 57.3 48 Boliv ia 47.1 Ghana 93 42.9 South Africa 138 38.8
4 Denmark 57.0 49 Brazil 46.8 Suriname 94 42.9 Lesotho 139 38.6
5 Switzerland 56.9 50 Ethiopia 46.7 Cote d'Iv oire 95 42.8 Turkmenistan 140 38.6
6 Norway 56.9 51 Russia 46.7 Tanzania 96 42.7 Egypt 141 38.6
7 Estonia 54.9 52 Colombia 46.7 Iran 97 42.6 Sudan 142 38.5
8 Luxembourg 54.5 53 Malta 46.6 Tunisia 98 42.5 Solomon Islands 143 38.4
9 Latv ia 54.4 54 Moldov a 46.5 Venezuela 99 42.3 Botswana 144 38.4
10 Croatia 54.2 55 Malaysia 46.4 Togo 100 42.3 Pakistan 145 38.3
11 Austria 54.2 56 Montenegro 46.4 Maldiv es 101 42.3 St. Kitts and Nev is 146 38.2
12 New Zealand 53.9 57 Guyana 46.2 Republic of Congo 102 41.9 Liberia 147 38.1
13 Slov enia 53.8 58 Chile 45.9 Philippines 103 41.7 Djibouti 148 38.0
14 Ireland 53.6 59 Mauritius 45.9 Democratic Republic of Congo 104 41.7 Zambia 149 37.9
15 Germany 53.5 60 Serbia 45.8 Nicaragua 105 41.5 Jordan 150 37.7
16 Czech Republic 53.1 61 Cyprus 45.8 Azerbaijan 106 41.5 Bahrain 151 37.7
17 United Kingdom 52.8 62 Burma 45.8 West Bank and Gaza 107 41.1 Rwanda 152 37.6
18 Liechtenstein 52.6 63 Kyrgistan 45.7 Dominica 108 41.1 Comoros 153 37.5
19 Canada 52.2 64 Nepal 45.6 Mozambique 109 41.0 Madagascar 154 37.4
20 France 52.0 65 Brunei 45.5 Saudi Arabia 110 41.0 Malawi 155 37.3
21 Poland 51.9 66 Indonesia 45.4 Sri Lanka 111 41.0 Lebanon 156 37.3
22 Slov akia 51.6 67 Panama 45.1 Qatar 112 40.8 Mali 157 37.2
23 Belgium 51.3 68 Uzbekistan 45.0 Dominican Republic 113 40.8 Niger 158 36.9
24 Portugal 51.1 69 Argentina 45.0 Equatorial Guinea 114 40.8 Guinea-Bissau 159 36.9
25 Japan 51.1 70 Laos 45.0 Angola 115 40.7 Afghanistan 160 36.7
26 Romania 50.8 71 Albania 45.0 Senegal 116 40.6 Libya 161 36.6
27 South Korea 50.8 72 Kazakhstan 44.9 Burkina Faso 117 40.6 Kuwait 162 36.4
28 Lithuania 50.6 73 Oman 44.7 Mongolia 118 40.5 Honduras 163 36.2
29 Netherlands 50.5 74 Ukraine 44.7 Morocco 119 40.4 Samoa 164 36.2
30 Italy 49.9 75 Mexico 44.4 Fiji 120 40.3 Kiribati 165 35.5
31 Hungary 49.2 76 Bhutan 44.4 Zimbabwe 121 40.2 Syria 166 35.3
32 Bulgaria 49.2 77 Turkey 44.4 El Salv ador 122 40.2 Central African Republic 167 35.3
33 Bosnia and Herzegov ina 49.2 78 Vietnam 44.4 Papua New Guinea 123 40.2 Iraq 168 34.6
34 USA 49.1 79 Ecuador 44.4 Nigeria 124 39.9 Burundi 169 34.5
35 Georgia 48.8 80 United Arab Emirates 44.3 Guinea 125 39.7 Uganda 170 34.4
36 Costa Rica 48.8 81 Cameroon 44.0 Tonga 126 39.7 Vanuatu 171 34.4
37 China 48.5 82 Thailand 43.8 Trinidad and Tobago 127 39.6 Chad 172 34.4
38 Spain 48.5 83 Belize 43.8 Benin 128 39.5 Eritrea 173 34.2
39 Paraguay 48.3 84 Timor-Leste 43.7 Guatemala 129 39.5 Mauritania 174 33.8
40 Belarus 47.8 85 Algeria 43.6 India 130 39.5 Grenada 175 33.2
41 Singapore 47.8 86 Cambodia 43.5 Sao Tome and Principe 131 39.4 Seychelles 176 32.8
42 Australia 47.6 87 Kenya 43.4 Bangladesh 132 39.1 South Sudan 177 31.8
43 Israel 47.5 88 Armenia 43.3 Namibia 133 39.1 Yemen 178 31.3
44 Greece 47.4 89 Sierra Leone 43.3 Cape Verde 134 39.0 Haiti 179 31.3
45 Peru 47.3 90 Tajikistan 43.3 Jamaica 135 39.0 Bahamas 180 30.5
42

Tables
Table of
Contents
Natural Capital Competitiveness Scores
Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore
Guyana 1 70.8 USA 46 53.3 Tajikistan 91 43.5 St. Kitts and Nev is 136 35.7
Laos 2 70.3 Guinea-Bissau 47 52.8 Austria 92 43.4 Sri Lanka 137 35.6
Democratic Republic of Congo 3 66.6 Belarus 48 52.8 Chad 93 43.1 Czech Republic 138 35.6
Cameroon 4 64.0 Bosnia and Herzegov ina 49 52.6 Slov enia 94 43.0 Cape Verde 139 35.6
Sweden 5 63.7 Lithuania 50 52.3 Indonesia 95 42.7 Eritrea 140 35.2
Estonia 6 63.3 Brunei 51 52.1 Gambia 96 42.7 Afghanistan 141 34.8
Republic of Congo 7 62.4 Argentina 52 51.8 Kazakhstan 97 42.6 United Kingdom 142 34.6
Finland 8 62.3 Solomon Islands 53 51.8 Sao Tome and Principe 98 42.5 Philippines 143 34.6
Canada 9 62.0 Chile 54 51.6 Serbia 99 42.1 Iran 144 34.5
Paraguay 10 62.0 Romania 55 51.2 Dominican Republic 100 42.0 Egypt 145 34.5
Colombia 11 61.7 Cambodia 56 51.1 Benin 101 41.1 Pakistan 146 34.5
Sierra Leone 12 61.6 Cote d'Iv oire 57 50.8 Italy 102 41.1 Netherlands 147 34.4
Burma 13 61.3 Nicaragua 58 50.8 Niger 103 40.9 Mauritius 148 34.4
New Zealand 14 61.0 Australia 59 50.0 Mauritania 104 40.9 South Korea 149 34.2
Venezuela 15 60.7 Ghana 60 48.9 Greece 105 40.8 Kenya 150 34.2
Brazil 16 60.1 South Africa 61 48.3 Slov akia 106 40.5 Mongolia 151 33.7
Suriname 17 60.0 Ecuador 62 47.9 Uganda 107 40.4 Azerbaijan 152 33.7
Peru 18 59.8 Kyrgistan 63 47.5 Honduras 108 40.4 China 153 33.3
Norway 19 59.1 Malawi 64 47.4 Luxembourg 109 40.2 Morocco 154 33.1
Madagascar 20 58.5 Malaysia 65 47.3 Nigeria 110 39.9 South Sudan 155 33.1
Equatorial Guinea 21 58.3 Georgia 66 47.2 Tonga 111 39.7 Maldiv es 156 32.6
Iceland 22 58.0 Switzerland 67 47.0 Trinidad and Tobago 112 39.6 Yemen 157 32.2
Papua New Guinea 23 58.0 Lesotho 68 46.9 Djibouti 113 38.7 Grenada 158 31.3
Gabon 24 57.9 Swaziland 69 46.8 Syria 114 38.7 Jamaica 159 31.2
Central African Republic 25 57.7 Denmark 70 46.8 Uzbekistan 115 38.6 Botswana 160 31.0
Guinea 26 57.3 Zimbabwe 71 46.7 Guatemala 116 38.6 Seychelles 161 30.9
Zambia 27 57.2 Samoa 72 46.7 Oman 117 38.6 Bangladesh 162 30.8
Croatia 28 57.0 Ireland 73 46.4 Rwanda 118 38.5 India 163 30.7
Latv ia 29 56.7 France 74 46.4 Namibia 119 38.4 Belgium 164 30.3
Boliv ia 30 56.1 Albania 75 45.9 Comoros 120 38.2 United Arab Emirates 165 29.7
Belize 31 55.5 Togo 76 45.7 Senegal 121 38.1 Haiti 166 29.3
Russia 32 55.4 Timor-Leste 77 45.7 Japan 122 38.0 Kiribati 167 28.9
Tanzania 33 55.4 Portugal 78 45.5 Vanuatu 123 37.9 Malta 168 28.7
Bhutan 34 55.3 Vietnam 79 45.4 Burundi 124 37.8 Cyprus 169 28.1
Liberia 35 55.2 Ukraine 80 45.2 Moldov a 125 37.1 Qatar 170 28.0
Uruguay 36 55.1 Burkina Faso 81 45.2 Cuba 126 36.8 Kuwait 171 27.1
Mali 37 55.0 Macedonia 82 44.7 Turkey 127 36.7 Bahrain 172 27.0
Fiji 38 55.0 Mexico 83 44.5 Armenia 128 36.6 Tunisia 173 26.7
Ethiopia 39 54.5 Hungary 84 44.4 El Salv ador 129 36.5 West Bank and Gaza 174 26.6
Panama 40 54.3 Liechtenstein 85 44.3 Libya 130 36.4 Turkmenistan 175 25.3
Costa Rica 41 54.0 Dominica 86 44.3 Germany 131 36.4 Iraq 176 25.2
Angola 42 53.9 Montenegro 87 44.2 Thailand 132 36.3 Singapore 177 24.9
Sudan 43 53.9 Spain 88 44.2 Algeria 133 35.9 Israel 178 24.9
Mozambique 44 53.5 Poland 89 43.7 Bahamas 134 35.8 Jordan 179 23.9
Bulgaria 45 53.5 Nepal 90 43.7 Saudi Arabia 135 35.8 Lebanon 180 20.5
43

Tables
Methodology &
Tables Table of
Contents
Resource Intensity Competitiveness Scores
Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore
Kenya 1 66.3 Niger 46 53.1 Belarus 91 49.0 Azerbaijan 136 44.1
Togo 2 65.6 France 47 53.1 Bangladesh 92 48.7 India 137 44.0
Ethiopia 3 64.4 Uganda 48 53.0 Namibia 93 48.7 Guyana 138 43.6
Nigeria 4 63.8 Sao Tome and Principe 49 53.0 Algeria 94 48.7 Israel 139 43.6
Sweden 5 63.8 Zambia 50 53.0 Central African Republic 95 48.4 Iraq 140 43.3
Luxembourg 6 63.5 South Sudan 51 52.9 Japan 96 48.3 Trinidad and Tobago 141 43.0
Benin 7 63.3 Guatemala 52 52.9 Syria 97 48.0 Montenegro 142 43.0
United Kingdom 8 62.5 Rwanda 53 52.7 Tajikistan 98 48.0 Venezuela 143 42.8
Tanzania 9 61.4 El Salv ador 54 52.7 Papua New Guinea 99 47.8 Laos 144 42.7
Democratic Republic of Congo 10 61.1 New Zealand 55 52.7 Peru 100 47.8 Argentina 145 42.7
Latv ia 11 61.1 Burma 56 52.4 Tonga 101 47.5 Vanuatu 146 42.3
Republic of Congo 12 60.9 Gambia 57 52.3 USA 102 47.5 Ukraine 147 42.2
Denmark 13 59.8 Italy 58 52.1 Hungary 103 47.4 United Arab Emirates 148 42.1
Croatia 14 59.8 West Bank and Gaza 59 51.9 Bosnia and Herzegov ina 104 47.3 Sri Lanka 149 42.1
Nepal 15 59.3 Burkina Faso 60 51.9 Kyrgistan 105 47.3 Cuba 150 42.0
Slov akia 16 58.8 Comoros 61 51.6 Netherlands 106 46.9 Samoa 151 41.9
Cameroon 17 58.7 Cyprus 62 51.4 Pakistan 107 46.7 Turkey 152 41.8
Ireland 18 58.4 Greece 63 51.3 Madagascar 108 46.7 Oman 153 41.6
Moldov a 19 58.3 Djibouti 64 51.2 Yemen 109 46.7 Mongolia 154 41.1
Cote d'Iv oire 20 57.9 Panama 65 51.1 Solomon Islands 110 46.6 South Korea 155 41.0
Nicaragua 21 57.7 Malta 66 50.8 Estonia 111 46.5 Botswana 156 40.9
Angola 22 57.7 Jamaica 67 50.7 Tunisia 112 46.5 Swaziland 157 40.6
Ghana 23 57.7 Portugal 68 50.6 Mali 113 46.0 Bulgaria 158 40.4
Mozambique 24 57.5 Cambodia 69 50.6 Brunei 114 45.9 South Africa 159 39.7
Switzerland 25 57.4 Burundi 70 50.5 Georgia 115 45.8 China 160 39.7
Gabon 26 57.1 Poland 71 50.4 Maldiv es 116 45.6 Russia 161 39.6
Lithuania 27 56.8 Guinea-Bissau 72 50.3 Ecuador 117 45.6 Mauritius 162 39.3
Uruguay 28 56.5 Norway 73 50.3 Macedonia 118 45.6 Iran 163 39.2
Iceland 29 56.0 Zimbabwe 74 50.2 Jordan 119 45.5 Suriname 164 39.1
Romania 30 55.7 Sierra Leone 75 50.1 Timor-Leste 120 45.5 Egypt 165 38.8
Finland 31 55.6 Colombia 76 50.1 Afghanistan 121 45.4 Singapore 166 38.7
Boliv ia 32 55.4 Germany 77 50.1 Albania 122 45.4 Turkmenistan 167 38.6
Lesotho 33 55.4 Dominica 78 50.0 Morocco 123 45.3 Malaysia 168 37.9
Haiti 34 55.2 Philippines 79 49.9 Mexico 124 45.3 Bhutan 169 37.8
Paraguay 35 55.1 Canada 80 49.9 Fiji 125 45.1 St. Kitts and Nev is 170 37.7
Honduras 36 54.5 Malawi 81 49.9 Mauritania 126 44.9 Bahrain 171 37.6
Belgium 37 54.5 Liberia 82 49.8 Qatar 127 44.8 Libya 172 37.3
Brazil 38 54.4 Belize 83 49.4 Kiribati 128 44.7 Vietnam 173 36.4
Equatorial Guinea 39 54.3 Slov enia 84 49.3 Indonesia 129 44.4 Serbia 174 36.4
Senegal 40 54.2 Spain 85 49.2 Lebanon 130 44.4 Saudi Arabia 175 35.7
Liechtenstein 41 53.8 Uzbekistan 86 49.2 Chile 131 44.4 Grenada 176 34.2
Austria 42 53.5 Sudan 87 49.2 Armenia 132 44.4 Kazakhstan 177 33.6
Costa Rica 43 53.5 Chad 88 49.1 Dominican Republic 133 44.2 Kuwait 178 30.6
Eritrea 44 53.4 Guinea 89 49.1 Thailand 134 44.1 Seychelles 179 27.6
Czech Republic 45 53.3 Australia 90 49.0 Cape Verde 135 44.1 Bahamas 180 27.0
44

Tables
Table of
Contents
Social Capital Competitiveness Scores
Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore
Finland 1 58.8 Lebanon 46 47.7 Cape Verde 91 40.4 Benin 136 36.0
Norway 2 58.6 Malaysia 47 47.6 Mali 92 40.2 Nigeria 137 35.9
Iceland 3 58.4 Moldov a 48 47.6 Boliv ia 93 40.0 Belize 138 35.8
Sweden 4 58.3 Romania 49 47.5 Turkmenistan 94 39.9 Madagascar 139 35.8
Switzerland 5 57.8 Azerbaijan 50 47.3 Laos 95 39.8 Cote d'Iv oire 140 35.8
Luxembourg 6 57.2 Latv ia 51 47.2 Cameroon 96 39.8 Guinea-Bissau 141 35.7
Austria 7 57.0 United Arab Emirates 52 47.2 Ethiopia 97 39.8 USA 142 35.7
Netherlands 8 56.8 Croatia 53 47.2 Cambodia 98 39.7 South Sudan 143 35.6
Germany 9 56.4 Israel 54 47.1 Costa Rica 99 39.5 Namibia 144 35.5
Belgium 10 56.2 Argentina 55 47.1 Suriname 100 39.4 Solomon Islands 145 35.5
Denmark 11 55.3 Georgia 56 47.0 Angola 101 39.2 Djibouti 146 35.4
Japan 12 55.0 Algeria 57 46.7 Cuba 102 39.0 Dominica 147 35.3
Singapore 13 53.7 Tunisia 58 46.6 Morocco 103 38.7 Brazil 148 35.0
Slov enia 14 53.4 Nepal 59 46.5 Turkey 104 38.7 Togo 149 34.9
Liechtenstein 15 52.6 Belarus 60 46.2 Sao Tome and Principe 105 38.6 Sudan 150 34.9
Portugal 16 52.6 Bulgaria 61 46.0 El Salv ador 106 38.6 Eritrea 151 34.8
Italy 17 52.2 Sierra Leone 62 45.9 Paraguay 107 38.6 Equatorial Guinea 152 34.8
Czech Republic 18 52.0 Albania 63 45.5 Gambia 108 38.5 Dominican Republic 153 34.6
Kyrgistan 19 51.9 Sri Lanka 64 45.2 Thailand 109 38.5 Jamaica 154 34.5
France 20 51.9 Hungary 65 45.0 Philippines 110 38.5 Trinidad and Tobago 155 34.5
Estonia 21 51.9 Brunei 66 44.3 Iran 111 38.4 Colombia 156 34.0
Malta 22 51.4 Oman 67 44.2 Afghanistan 112 38.3 Zimbabwe 157 33.7
Montenegro 23 51.3 Qatar 68 44.1 Comoros 113 38.3 Iraq 158 33.2
South Korea 24 51.2 Ecuador 69 44.1 Mauritania 114 38.2 Zambia 159 33.1
New Zealand 25 51.1 Indonesia 70 44.0 Burma 115 38.1 Venezuela 160 33.1
Mongolia 26 51.0 Bhutan 71 43.8 Mozambique 116 38.1 Guatemala 161 33.0
Cyprus 27 50.9 Jordan 72 43.7 West Bank and Gaza 117 37.9 Fiji 162 33.0
Kazakhstan 28 50.9 Burkina Faso 73 43.6 Kenya 118 37.9 Uganda 163 32.9
Slov akia 29 50.6 Greece 74 43.6 Panama 119 37.3 Egypt 164 32.7
Spain 30 50.6 Kuwait 75 43.4 Papua New Guinea 120 37.2 Kiribati 165 32.5
Serbia 31 50.5 Mauritius 76 43.3 St. Kitts and Nev is 121 37.1 Samoa 166 32.5
Poland 32 50.2 Libya 77 43.2 Gabon 122 37.1 Syria 167 32.4
Armenia 33 49.9 Niger 78 42.7 Republic of Congo 123 37.0 Vanuatu 168 32.4
China 34 49.8 Vietnam 79 42.6 Rwanda 124 36.9 South Africa 169 31.6
Uzbekistan 35 49.7 Saudi Arabia 80 42.5 Liberia 125 36.9 Seychelles 170 31.4
Australia 36 49.7 Nicaragua 81 42.4 Tanzania 126 36.8 Burundi 171 31.3
Ireland 37 49.7 Bangladesh 82 42.1 Russia 127 36.7 Democratic Republic of Congo 172 31.2
Bosnia and Herzegov ina 38 49.6 Senegal 83 42.0 Bahrain 128 36.7 Yemen 173 30.9
Macedonia 39 49.3 Pakistan 84 41.9 Guyana 129 36.6 Botswana 174 30.8
United Kingdom 40 48.9 Mexico 85 41.4 Grenada 130 36.5 Honduras 175 29.9
Canada 41 48.7 Guinea 86 41.4 Chad 131 36.5 Haiti 176 29.4
Timor-Leste 42 48.6 Ukraine 87 41.3 Tonga 132 36.5 Swaziland 177 28.8
Tajikistan 43 48.2 Peru 88 41.0 Ghana 133 36.4 Lesotho 178 28.0
Maldiv es 44 48.2 Uruguay 89 40.9 Malawi 134 36.4 Central African Republic 179 27.7
Lithuania 45 48.1 India 90 40.5 Chile 135 36.0 Bahamas 180 23.9
45

Tables
Methodology &
Tables Table of
Contents
Intellectual Capital Competitiveness Scores
Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore Country Ra nk S c ore
South Korea 1 72.9 Brunei 46 45.7 Ecuador 91 34.4 Papua New Guinea 136 25.2
Sweden 2 66.1 Tunisia 47 45.0 Armenia 92 34.2 El Salv ador 137 24.8
Norway 3 64.3 Costa Rica 48 44.9 Sri Lanka 93 34.0 Cambodia 138 24.7
Singapore 4 63.6 Latv ia 49 44.1 Trinidad and Tobago 94 33.9 Senegal 139 24.6
Denmark 5 63.6 West Bank and Gaza 50 44.0 Uruguay 95 33.9 Comoros 140 24.2
Japan 6 62.3 Chile 51 43.6 Venezuela 96 33.9 Bahamas 141 24.1
United Kingdom 7 62.1 United Arab Emirates 52 43.6 Azerbaijan 97 33.8 Afghanistan 142 23.9
Switzerland 8 62.1 New Zealand 53 43.4 Jamaica 98 33.8 Gabon 143 23.8
China 9 61.5 Lithuania 54 43.0 Argentina 99 33.7 Mozambique 144 23.7
Israel 10 60.8 Spain 55 42.6 Sao Tome and Principe 100 33.5 Burkina Faso 145 23.4
Germany 11 60.6 Brazil 56 42.3 Lebanon 101 33.5 Ethiopia 146 23.3
Finland 12 59.3 Macedonia 57 42.2 Belize 102 33.4 Guatemala 147 22.8
Slov enia 13 59.0 Vietnam 58 41.9 Jordan 103 33.2 Benin 148 22.2
Czech Republic 14 58.5 Bosnia and Herzegov ina 59 41.6 Cape Verde 104 33.0 Tanzania 149 21.9
USA 15 58.2 Kazakhstan 60 41.5 India 105 32.1 Angola 150 21.8
Belgium 16 58.0 Indonesia 61 41.1 Namibia 106 31.5 Togo 151 21.6
Netherlands 17 56.4 Cuba 62 41.0 Suriname 107 31.5 Samoa 152 21.6
Austria 18 56.1 Kyrgistan 63 41.0 Laos 108 31.4 Pakistan 153 20.9
Iceland 19 55.4 Romania 64 40.8 Panama 109 31.4 Republic of Congo 154 20.3
France 20 54.6 Botswana 65 40.6 Paraguay 110 31.3 Liberia 155 20.2
Portugal 21 51.6 Australia 66 39.9 Qatar 111 31.3 Haiti 156 20.1
Liechtenstein 22 51.5 Mongolia 67 39.6 Kiribati 112 31.2 Sudan 157 20.1
Malaysia 23 51.4 Montenegro 68 39.4 Nepal 113 31.2 Burundi 158 20.0
Poland 24 51.1 Albania 69 39.2 Fiji 114 31.2 Vanuatu 159 19.7
Hungary 25 50.9 Belarus 70 38.9 Philippines 115 31.0 Equatorial Guinea 160 19.1
Turkey 26 50.4 Timor-Leste 71 38.5 St. Kitts and Nev is 116 30.8 Cameroon 161 18.6
Estonia 27 50.4 Bahrain 72 38.4 Tonga 117 30.7 Yemen 162 18.6
Mauritius 28 49.8 Algeria 73 38.4 Kuwait 118 30.6 Bangladesh 163 18.5
Canada 29 49.7 Uzbekistan 74 38.3 Burma 119 30.6 Malawi 164 18.1
Luxembourg 30 49.7 Peru 75 38.2 Dominican Republic 120 30.6 Gambia 165 17.7
Italy 31 48.8 Mexico 76 38.0 Dominica 121 29.6 Chad 166 16.8
Russia 32 48.6 Maldiv es 77 37.8 Libya 122 28.7 Guinea-Bissau 167 16.6
Croatia 33 48.5 Guyana 78 37.5 Seychelles 123 28.2 Rwanda 168 15.7
Slov akia 34 47.8 Colombia 79 37.5 Zimbabwe 124 28.1 Nigeria 169 15.6
Ukraine 35 47.8 South Africa 80 37.2 Grenada 125 27.4 Mauritania 170 15.4
Ireland 36 47.2 Moldov a 81 36.9 Lesotho 126 27.3 Guinea 171 15.1
Malta 37 47.1 Saudi Arabia 82 36.9 Sierra Leone 127 27.0 Eritrea 172 14.5
Greece 38 46.9 Tajikistan 83 36.7 Iraq 128 26.9 Uganda 173 14.4
Cyprus 39 46.6 Swaziland 84 36.4 Solomon Islands 129 26.9 Madagascar 174 14.1
Georgia 40 46.6 Morocco 85 36.2 Nicaragua 130 26.3 Niger 175 14.0
Thailand 41 46.6 Egypt 86 36.1 Djibouti 131 26.2 Mali 176 13.0
Oman 42 46.0 Kenya 87 36.0 Syria 132 25.8 Central African Republic 177 12.5
Iran 43 46.0 Bhutan 88 36.0 Cote d'Iv oire 133 25.4 Democratic Republic of Congo 178 12.3
Serbia 44 45.9 Turkmenistan 89 35.5 Honduras 134 25.3 South Sudan 179 10.1
Bulgaria 45 45.7 Boliv ia 90 35.5 Ghana 135 25.2 Zambia 180 8.7
46

Tables
Table of
Contents
Governance Efficiency Competitiveness Scores
Country Rank Score Country Rank Score Country Rank Score Country Rank Score
Ireland 1 66.5 Turkey 46 54.4 Botswana 91 48.6 Vanuatu 136 39.6
Czech Republic 2 66.3 Serbia 47 54.3 Algeria 92 48.4 Brunei 137 39.2
Slov enia 3 64.3 Montenegro 48 54.3 Azerbaijan 93 48.3 Cameroon 138 38.9
Poland 4 64.2 Macedonia 49 54.2 Malaysia 94 48.1 Burkina Faso 139 38.9
Germany 5 64.1 Chile 50 53.8 Sri Lanka 95 47.9 Djibouti 140 38.7
Latv ia 6 63.0 Saudi Arabia 51 53.8 Tunisia 96 47.8 Samoa 141 38.1
Estonia 7 62.5 France 52 53.7 Pakistan 97 47.7 Tanzania 142 37.9
Mauritius 8 62.5 Turkmenistan 53 53.7 Maldiv es 98 47.3 Zambia 143 37.7
Luxembourg 9 61.6 Thailand 54 53.5 Nepal 99 47.3 Equatorial Guinea 144 37.4
New Zealand 10 61.4 Oman 55 53.3 Ukraine 100 47.1 Democratic Republic of Congo 145 37.3
Finland 11 61.3 Russia 56 53.1 Trinidad and Tobago 101 46.7 Libya 146 37.3
Liechtenstein 12 61.0 Mexico 57 53.0 Burma 102 46.6 Fiji 147 37.2
Israel 13 61.0 Lithuania 58 52.8 Dominica 103 46.4 Mongolia 148 37.2
Austria 14 60.9 Moldov a 59 52.8 Ghana 104 46.3 South Africa 149 37.1
Slov akia 15 60.5 Belarus 60 52.4 Seychelles 105 46.1 Grenada 150 36.4
Switzerland 16 60.5 Dominican Republic 61 52.4 West Bank and Gaza 106 45.2 Guinea 151 35.9
Bulgaria 17 60.2 Norway 62 52.3 Jamaica 107 44.7 Lesotho 152 35.7
Denmark 18 59.3 Cyprus 63 52.1 Belize 108 44.7 Benin 153 35.1
Romania 19 58.8 Japan 64 52.1 Iraq 109 44.6 Malawi 154 35.0
United Arab Emirates 20 58.7 Costa Rica 65 52.1 Suriname 110 44.5 Comoros 155 34.8
Iceland 21 58.6 Cambodia 66 51.7 Senegal 111 44.2 Sudan 156 34.5
Croatia 22 58.5 Ethiopia 67 51.7 Nigeria 112 44.1 Niger 157 33.9
Hungary 23 58.3 Armenia 68 51.6 Rwanda 113 44.0 Eritrea 158 33.3
China 24 58.1 Panama 69 51.4 Cote d'Iv oire 114 43.9 Burundi 159 33.1
Netherlands 25 58.1 Sweden 70 51.1 Tonga 115 43.9 Papua New Guinea 160 32.7
Singapore 26 58.1 USA 71 51.1 Togo 116 43.7 Mozambique 161 32.4
Belgium 27 57.8 Egypt 72 50.9 Gambia 117 43.2 Sierra Leone 162 32.0
Georgia 28 57.6 Canada 73 50.5 Zimbabwe 118 42.6 Madagascar 163 31.9
Cuba 29 56.1 Guatemala 74 50.2 Kenya 119 42.4 Syria 164 31.8
Kazakhstan 30 55.9 India 75 50.1 Guyana 120 42.3 Mali 165 31.5
Qatar 31 55.8 Kuwait 76 50.1 Brazil 121 42.2 Uganda 166 31.3
United Kingdom 32 55.8 Colombia 77 50.0 Jordan 122 42.1 Solomon Islands 167 31.3
Vietnam 33 55.7 Argentina 78 49.9 Swaziland 123 41.9 Angola 168 31.1
Spain 34 55.7 Peru 79 49.9 Cape Verde 124 41.8 Honduras 169 30.9
Bangladesh 35 55.5 Ecuador 80 49.7 Bahamas 125 41.7 Nicaragua 170 30.6
Italy 36 55.4 Uruguay 81 49.7 Namibia 126 41.5 Central African Republic 171 30.1
Portugal 37 55.4 St. Kitts and Nev is 82 49.5 Venezuela 127 41.2 Mauritania 172 29.6
Iran 38 55.1 Australia 83 49.4 Afghanistan 128 41.0 Guinea-Bissau 173 29.1
Malta 39 55.0 Uzbekistan 84 49.4 Kyrgistan 129 40.8 Sao Tome and Principe 174 29.1
Indonesia 40 54.7 Bhutan 85 49.2 Laos 130 40.7 Republic of Congo 175 28.9
Bosnia and Herzegov ina 41 54.7 Albania 86 48.9 Timor-Leste 131 40.3 Liberia 176 28.2
Greece 42 54.7 Boliv ia 87 48.8 Lebanon 132 40.3 Yemen 177 28.1
South Korea 43 54.6 El Salv ador 88 48.6 Tajikistan 133 40.2 South Sudan 178 27.5
Philippines 44 54.5 Bahrain 89 48.6 Kiribati 134 40.0 Chad 179 26.4
Paraguay 45 54.5 Morocco 90 48.6 Gabon 135 39.9 Haiti 180 22.3
47

Tables Disclaimer
Table of
Contents
Disclaimer
No warranty
This publication is derived from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but neither
its accuracy nor completeness is guaranteed. The material and information in this
publication are provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind, either expressed or
implied. SolAbility disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, including, but not limited
to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Any opinions
and views in this publication reflect the current judgment of the authors and may change
without notice. It is each reader's responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, completeness
and usefulness of any opinions, advice, services or other information provided in this
publication.
Limitation of liability
All information contained in this publication is distributed with the understanding that the
authors, publishers and distributors are not rendering legal, accounting or other
professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and accordingly assume no
liability whatsoever in connection with its use. In no event shall SolAbility be liable for any
direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of
any opinion or information expressly or implicitly contained in this publication.
Copyright
Unless otherwise noted, text, images and layout of this publication are the exclusive
property of SolAbility. Republication is welcome.
No Offer
The information and opinions contained in this publication constitutes neither a
solicitation, nor a recommendation, nor an offer to buy or sell investment instruments or
other services, or to engage in any other kind of transaction. The information described
in this publication is not directed to persons in any jurisdiction where the provision of such
information would run counter to local laws and regulation.
48

Tables
Table of
Contents
The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index
8 th edition
2019
www.solability.com
www.solability.com
contact@solability.com
49